Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is not actually available, that it returns a structured 'not available' response, and that it writes nothing. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the intended purpose and immediately followed by the critical availability caveat. Every word contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that is currently a stub, the description gives the key operational facts: it is not available, returns a structured 'not available' response, and has no side effects. It is slightly thin on the exact shape of that response and on parameter expectations, but those are less important given the tool's non-functional status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It never explains fields like price_sats, input_schema, output_schema, or how they relate to the listing. Even for a stub endpoint, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Submit a new skill listing for sale.' It also immediately distinguishes this from the sibling tools (search, get, purchase), and the 'NOT YET AVAILABLE' warning clarifies that the tool is a non-live stub.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context about when not to use this tool: the flow isn't live and calling it writes nothing. It does not, however, name alternatives or specify a positive scenario for calling it, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.